Being the savvy prepress person that i am, I submitted my complex AI
and PSD illustrations in Adobe's (SAVE AS) PDF format, all fully
editable.

Could someone explain why the art department of a national publisher
would have problems opening them?

I will provide them the native files, but I wonder this, why do the
programs suggest saving to PDF (editable) if it is so "difficult" to
work with?



--
Carol Majors / Publications unltd
Raleigh NC
.. . . . . . . . . . . .

> Being the savvy prepress person that i am, I submitted my complex AI
> and PSD illustrations in Adobe's (SAVE AS) PDF format, all fully
> editable.

And you should be highly commended for doing so :-)

> Could someone explain why the art department of a national publisher
> would have problems opening them?

Do they, at least, have the corresponding CS versions?
Do they have real competent prepress folks?
Are they still on QuarkXpress v3.21?

> I will provide them the native files, but I wonder this, why do the
> programs suggest saving to PDF (editable) if it is so "difficult" to
> work with?

Could be they don't try to edit them with the source application? I'm
surprised, at times, to find my Illustrator CS3 documents appearing with an
Acrobat icon.

> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
> Raleigh NC

Roger Breton

They're probably double-clicking the icon in the Finder, which likely
opens the file in Acrobat. Instead, they should either drag the icon
to the appropriate application, do a "file > open," or right-click the
file and choose "open with."

David

On Jul 2, 2008, at 6:51 PM, C F Majors wrote:

> Being the savvy prepress person that i am, I submitted my complex AI
> and PSD illustrations in Adobe's (SAVE AS) PDF format, all fully
> editable.
>
> Could someone explain why the art department of a national publisher
> would have problems opening them?
>
> I will provide them the native files, but I wonder this, why do the
> programs suggest saving to PDF (editable) if it is so "difficult" to
> work with?
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
> Raleigh NC
> . . . . . . . . . . . .

QUOTING ME to THEM:
The PDF's are output from Illustrator as live art in editable
PDF format. They can be opened in Illustrator for changes, or Photoshop
(rasterized) for touchups. Or they may be placed in any layout program.
One file, the XX, is rasterized and not vector-editable.

AND THEM SAYS:
I spoke with one of our illustrators and they let me know that if you
are certain that the PDFs provided are final and would need no further
changes, we could use the PDF files. If there would be a need to make
any corrections, we would then need to extract the art from the PDFs,
which incurs additional costs, which we wouldn't want to incur,
especially since the Illustrator files exist.

.. . .

Strange planet, that graphics department... we are not getting contact.



On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:51 PM, David Wolfe <dwolfe@[Protected]> wrote:
> They're probably double-clicking the icon in the Finder, which likely opens
> the file in Acrobat. Instead, they should either drag the icon to the
> appropriate application, do a "file > open," or right-click the file and
> choose "open with."
>
> David
>
> On Jul 2, 2008, at 6:51 PM, C F Majors wrote:
>
>> Being the savvy prepress person that i am, I submitted my complex AI
>> and PSD illustrations in Adobe's (SAVE AS) PDF format, all fully
>> editable.
>>
>> Could someone explain why the art department of a national publisher
>> would have problems opening them?
>>
>> I will provide them the native files, but I wonder this, why do the
>> programs suggest saving to PDF (editable) if it is so "difficult" to
>> work with?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
>> Raleigh NC
>> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>



--
Carol Majors / Publications unltd
Raleigh NC
.. . . . . . . . . . . .

> AND THEM SAYS:
> I spoke with one of our illustrators and they let me know that if you
> are certain that the PDFs provided are final and would need no further
> changes, we could use the PDF files. If there would be a need to make
> any corrections, we would then need to extract the art from the PDFs,
> which incurs additional costs, which we wouldn't want to incur,
> especially since the Illustrator files exist.
>
> Strange planet, that graphics department... we are not getting contact.

That's a close-minded attitude. Better give them Illustrator v8 documents.

Roger Breton

Sounds to me like somebody's not aware that the PDF only serves as a
printable "wrapper" for the complete, editable, layered application
file.

David

On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:01 PM, C F Majors wrote:

> QUOTING ME to THEM:
> The PDF's are output from Illustrator as live art in editable
> PDF format. They can be opened in Illustrator for changes, or
> Photoshop
> (rasterized) for touchups. Or they may be placed in any layout
> program.
> One file, the XX, is rasterized and not vector-editable.
>
> AND THEM SAYS:
> I spoke with one of our illustrators and they let me know that if you
> are certain that the PDFs provided are final and would need no further
> changes, we could use the PDF files. If there would be a need to make
> any corrections, we would then need to extract the art from the PDFs,
> which incurs additional costs, which we wouldn't want to incur,
> especially since the Illustrator files exist.
>
> . . .
>
> Strange planet, that graphics department... we are not getting
> contact.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:51 PM, David Wolfe <dwolfe@[Protected]>
> wrote:
>> They're probably double-clicking the icon in the Finder, which
>> likely opens
>> the file in Acrobat. Instead, they should either drag the icon to the
>> appropriate application, do a "file > open," or right-click the
>> file and
>> choose "open with."
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2008, at 6:51 PM, C F Majors wrote:
>>
>>> Being the savvy prepress person that i am, I submitted my complex AI
>>> and PSD illustrations in Adobe's (SAVE AS) PDF format, all fully
>>> editable.
>>>
>>> Could someone explain why the art department of a national publisher
>>> would have problems opening them?
>>>
>>> I will provide them the native files, but I wonder this, why do the
>>> programs suggest saving to PDF (editable) if it is so "difficult" to
>>> work with?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
>>> Raleigh NC
>>> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
> Raleigh NC
> . . . . . . . . . . . .

I have seen that icon too. in fact it is on 2 of the "new" files I am
submitting.

hope that does not throw them.

Are the AI and PSD programs now MORE restrictive in opening various
versions of their files? Tiff and EPS were happily backward compatible
for at least a decade.



On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Roger Breton <graxx@[Protected]> wrote:
>> Being the savvy prepress person that i am, I submitted my complex AI
>> and PSD illustrations in Adobe's (SAVE AS) PDF format, all fully
>> editable.
>
> And you should be highly commended for doing so :-)
>
>> Could someone explain why the art department of a national publisher
>> would have problems opening them?
>
> Do they, at least, have the corresponding CS versions?
> Do they have real competent prepress folks?
> Are they still on QuarkXpress v3.21?
>
>> I will provide them the native files, but I wonder this, why do the
>> programs suggest saving to PDF (editable) if it is so "difficult" to
>> work with?
>
> Could be they don't try to edit them with the source application? I'm
> surprised, at times, to find my Illustrator CS3 documents appearing with an
> Acrobat icon.
>
>> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
>> Raleigh NC
>
> Roger Breton
>
>
>
> --
>
>



--
Carol Majors / Publications unltd
Raleigh NC
.. . . . . . . . . . . .

sure does. i am beginning to think this is not an in-house art department.



On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:27 AM, David Wolfe <dwolfe@[Protected]> wrote:
> Sounds to me like somebody's not aware that the PDF only serves as a
> printable "wrapper" for the complete, editable, layered application file.
>
> David
>
> On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:01 PM, C F Majors wrote:
>
>> QUOTING ME to THEM:
>> The PDF's are output from Illustrator as live art in editable
>> PDF format. They can be opened in Illustrator for changes, or Photoshop
>> (rasterized) for touchups. Or they may be placed in any layout program.
>> One file, the XX, is rasterized and not vector-editable.
>>
>> AND THEM SAYS:
>> I spoke with one of our illustrators and they let me know that if you
>> are certain that the PDFs provided are final and would need no further
>> changes, we could use the PDF files. If there would be a need to make
>> any corrections, we would then need to extract the art from the PDFs,
>> which incurs additional costs, which we wouldn't want to incur,
>> especially since the Illustrator files exist.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> Strange planet, that graphics department... we are not getting contact.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:51 PM, David Wolfe <dwolfe@[Protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> They're probably double-clicking the icon in the Finder, which likely
>>> opens
>>> the file in Acrobat. Instead, they should either drag the icon to the
>>> appropriate application, do a "file > open," or right-click the file and
>>> choose "open with."
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2008, at 6:51 PM, C F Majors wrote:
>>>
>>>> Being the savvy prepress person that i am, I submitted my complex AI
>>>> and PSD illustrations in Adobe's (SAVE AS) PDF format, all fully
>>>> editable.
>>>>
>>>> Could someone explain why the art department of a national publisher
>>>> would have problems opening them?
>>>>
>>>> I will provide them the native files, but I wonder this, why do the
>>>> programs suggest saving to PDF (editable) if it is so "difficult" to
>>>> work with?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
>>>> Raleigh NC
>>>> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carol Majors / Publications unltd
>> Raleigh NC
>> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>



--
Carol Majors / Publications unltd
Raleigh NC
.. . . . . . . . . . . .

Carol,

> Are the AI and PSD programs now MORE restrictive in opening various
> versions of their files? Tiff and EPS were happily backward compatible
> for at least a decade.

I don't see the restrictions. In fact, Ai documents can be freely opened
(rasterized) in PS and PSD's can be open directly in Ai (and become place
embedded). Both Ai and ID support advanced PSD layers capabilities.

So, to me, it has become very open, very flexible -- I love it.

Roger Breton

i shall conclude the graphics people are backassward then. I spent $5
priority mailing the CD yesterday (and an hour handling). I had a 12
MB zip file ready, and no place to send it. may be they need some
xactos and wax too.







On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Roger Breton <graxx@[Protected]> wrote:
> Carol,
>
>> Are the AI and PSD programs now MORE restrictive in opening various
>> versions of their files? Tiff and EPS were happily backward compatible
>> for at least a decade.
>
> I don't see the restrictions. In fact, Ai documents can be freely opened
> (rasterized) in PS and PSD's can be open directly in Ai (and become place
> embedded). Both Ai and ID support advanced PSD layers capabilities.
>
> So, to me, it has become very open, very flexible -- I love it.
>
> Roger Breton
>
>
>
> --
>
>



--
Carol Majors / Publications unltd
Raleigh NC
.. . . . . . . . . . . .